This question <713|709> overall <714|716> Walmart: <714|104>.  
  Question 36: Why is the usefulness for human life attributed to the thing as if it was a property of the thing itself?   
  [715] Walmart: Re: Humans are only good if they make money.   I think this is a very difficult question to answer, and perhaps the reason no one has chosen to tackle it in the past. While I agree with Kalmerico's points on labor power in [713], I feel that there has to be something more to human life, as far as Marx is concerned. If non-human modifications don't create value in a commodity, then the attribute should be elevated above just the good or the article. Unless the thing is a separate entity, which is consumed by humans in the second phase, as told by the annotations, in which case the divisions are clear enough, and no other concepts are violated by this line of thinking.   
  Hans: What are you saying? You didn't make yourself clear.   
 
 
 
  Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message
Pseudonym:      UofU ID:  
Text: